alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 133 (Monday, July 13, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18504]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-316-000]


Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc.; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

July 7, 1998.
    Take notice that on July 1, 1998, Williams Gas Pipelines Central, 
Inc. (Williams), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet, with the 
proposed effective date of August 1, 1998:

First Revised Sheet No. 297

    Williams states that on April 16, 1998, the Commission issued Order 
No. 587-G (Order). The Order incorporated by reference, in Section 
284.10(b), the most recent version (Version 1.2) of standards 
promulgated by the Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB). These business 
practices standards supplement standards adopted by the Commission in 
Order Nos. 587, 587-B, and 587-C. Pipelines were required to comply 
with regulations by August 1, 1998. Williams states that the purpose of 
this filing is to revise the tariff in compliance with the Order.
    Williams states that a copy of its filing was served on all of 
Williams' jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18504 Filed 7-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 10-7303.

#### Jamesell J. Campbell, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1095, 131 S. Ct. 806,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9486.

178 L. Ed. 2d 538,

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 388 Fed. Appx. 570.
- 1 - 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

Managing Director and 

Associate General Counsel 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

1212 New York Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

202.842.4184 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com 

April 30, 2010 

via email and regulations.gov 

Ms. Dorothy Beard 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations 

West Building Ground Floor 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

 

 RE: Letters of Support for Delta Air Lines 

 U.S.–Haneda Service Proposals 

 Docket DOT-OST-2010-0018 

 

Dear Ms. Beard: 

Enclosed are additional letters of support for Delta's U.S.-Haneda service proposals received 

from elected officials, airport managers and corporations. 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

cc: Service List 

 

 

 




SERVICE LIST 

A copy of the foregoing document has been served this 30th day of April, 2010, upon the 

following persons via email: 

carl.nelson@aa.com 

dan.weiss@coair.com 

hershel.kamen@coair.com 

rbkeiner@crowell.com 

mrosia@crowell.com 

gmurphy@crowell.com 

jeffrey.manley@united.com 

julie.oettinger@united.com 

howard.kass@usairways.com 

benjamin.slocum@usairways.com 

jhill@dowlohnes.com 

ldeavers@dowlohnes.com 

perkmann@dowlohnes.com 

dmendersbee@zsrlaw.com 

todd.homan@dot.gov 

paul.gretch@dot.gov 

keith.glatz@dot.gov 

esta.rosenberg@dot.gov 

byerlyjr@state.gov 

eugene_alford@ita.doc.gov 

joe.cambron@wcaa.us 

Ishiwata.K@portseattle.org 

Safora.I@portseattle.org 

mike.orr@airlineinfo.com
Walking every day 

makes me feel 

like myself again. 

Well, almost.

Sharon, age 58, Illinois

Diagnosed with cancer at age 37

Sharon smoked. She quit, but not before 

she got throat cancer. The tumor made 

breathing hard so she couldn’t walk much. 

Since her voice box was removed she 

breathes through her neck. She knows her 

life will never be like it used to be.

You can quit smoking. 

For free help, call

1-800-QUIT-NOW.

#CDCTips

Print-Only Document
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2758 

To provide disaster relief assistance to individuals for the purpose of clearing 

fallen debris, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2019 

Ms. DELAURO (for herself and Mrs. HAYES) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To provide disaster relief assistance to individuals for the 

purpose of clearing fallen debris, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Diversifying Emer5 gency Benchmarks for the Recovery of Individuals after 

6 Storms Act’’ or the ‘‘DEBRIS Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2758 IH

1 SEC. 2. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS AND 

2 HOUSEHOLDS. 

3 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 408(c)(2)(A) of the Rob4 ert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 

5 Act (42 U.S.C. 5174(c)(2)(A)) is amended— 

6 (1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

7 (2) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii); 

8 and 

9 (3) by inserting after clause (i) the following: 

10 ‘‘(ii) the removal of debris from 

11 owner-occupied private residences and 

12 property; and’’. 

13 (b) APPLICABILITY.— 

14 (1) COVERED DISASTER DEFINED.—In this 

15 subsection, the term ‘‘covered disaster’’ means a 

16 major disaster declared by the President under sec17 tion 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 

18 and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170) on 

19 or after May 1, 2018. 

20 (2) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made 

21 by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to any cov22 ered disaster. 

23 (3) RESUBMISSION OF REQUESTS FOR ASSIST24 ANCE.—If a request for assistance, with respect to 

25 a covered disaster, was made under section 408 of 

26 the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and EmerVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:23 May 29, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2758.IH H2758

pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2758 IH

1 gency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5174), as in effect 

2 before the date of enactment of this Act, for the re3 moval of debris from an owner-occupied private resi4 dence or property and the request for such assist5 ance was denied before the date of enactment of this 

6 Act, the request for assistance under such section 

7 408, as amended by this Act, may be resubmitted. 

8 SEC. 3. FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN MAJOR DISASTER 

9 DECLARATIONS. 

10 Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 

11 of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 

12 Management Agency shall, by rulemaking, amend the fac13 tors considered when evaluating a Governor’s request for 

14 a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford 

15 Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 

16 5121 et seq.) to include the estimated cost of removing 

17 fallen debris from owner-occupied private residences and 

18 property. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
No. 10-7204.

#### Anthony Sagoes, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1075, 131 S. Ct. 677,

178 L. Ed. 2d 503,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9252.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 389 Fed. Appx. 911.
# C_2013086EN.01002302.xml

| 23.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/23

---

Action brought on 22 January 2013 — Exakt Advanced Technologies v OHIM — Exakt Precision Tools (EXAKT)

(Case T-37/13)

2013/C 86/38

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Exakt Advanced Technologies GmbH (Norderstedt, Germany) (represented by: A. von Bismarck, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Exakt Precision Tools Ltd (Aberdeen, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 October 2012 in Case R 1764/2011-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 October 2012 in Case R 1764/2011-1;

| — | Order the intervener to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the intervener to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the figurative mark including the word element ‘EXAKT’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9 and 37 — Community trade mark No 3 996 592

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Exakt Precision Tools Ltd

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the figurative mark including the word element ‘EXAKT’ for goods in Classes 7, 8 and 9

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application was upheld

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
No. 10-6800.

#### Bienvenido Casilla, Petitioner v. Michelle R. Ricci, Administrator, New Jersey State Prison, et al.

562 U.S. 1093, 131 S. Ct. 799,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9466.

178 L. Ed. 2d 535,

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
No. 10-7584.

#### Tek Ngo, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 1187, 131 S. Ct. 1015,

178 L. Ed. 2d 843,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 807.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 385 Fed. Appx. 227.
# C_2013207EN.01003702.xml

| 20.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/37

---

Action brought on 25 April 2013 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Alifoods (Alifoods)

(Case T-240/13)

2013/C 207/62

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks and C. Fürsen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alifoods, SA (Alicante, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 February 2013 in Case R 407/2012-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 February 2013 in Case R 407/2012-4;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Alifoods, SA

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word element ‘Alifoods’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 32 and 35 — Community trade mark application No B 1 825 002

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the international and Community word mark ‘ALDI’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 4, 9, 16, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
## CALPUFF Input Variables

## POSTUTIL Input Variables

## CALPOST Input Variables

## Appendix A

U Discussion of CALPUFF modeling options used for BART analyses

Various CALPUFF model options were specifi ed in an EPA memo issued by Dennis Atkinson and Tyler Fox of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; the memo was entitled “Dispersion Coefficients for Regulatory Air Quality Modeling in CALPUFF”, March 16, 2006. Of these various recommended settings, Southern Company, upon advice from ENSR, has used alternative settings for two specific options: CDIV and M PARTL. The values used by Southern Company and the reasons for these uses are provided below.

U CDIV

U : This parameter affects the divergence criter ion for dw/dz across pu ffs used to initiate adjustment for horizontal convergence. The value specified in the IWAQM Phase 2 report (1998) is 0.01 (1/sec). Since the time that report was generated, this option in CALPUFF was changed by the model developer, Earth Tech, to 0.0 to im prove the model performance in the year 2000. The use of the smaller value gives better protection against mass accumulation within convergence zones by compensating with increased sigma-z to account for vertical movement of the air. The model change actually requires two values for CDIV (values at partial and full adjustment), and the default value for each was acco rdingly changed to 0.0. This was confirmed by Joe Scire in an email to Bob Paine dated 12/22/06 (a copy can be provided upon request).

The old default value of 0.01 continues to be erroneously recommended by EPA, however, because the 1998 IWAQM guidance was never corre cted, and EPA memos such as the Atkinson and Fox memo referenced above have not made the correction either. Some states, such as Minnesota (see

H U http://www.pca.state.mn. us/air/regionalhaze.html

U H ) as well as Montana and other western states are using the current CDIV default values of 0.0, 0.0 in their BART analyses.

A number of CALPUFF input files provided on the TRC web site have 0.0, 0.0 as the selected CDIV values. Due to this reason and the updated default value specification for CDIV, Southern Company has elected to use the current default values of 0.0, 0.0.

U MPARTL

U : This parameter affects the manner in which puffs interact with the mixing lid. A value of 0 means that the ISCST3 modeling approach is used; while a value of 1 means that the AERMOD approach is used. In the March 16, 2006 Atkinson and Fox memo, other AERMODrelated options (some default, some not) that had been accepted before this time were removed from the approved list. The MPARTL option wa s apparently retained (possibly an EPA oversight) as set to 1 in the memo, even though it is an AERMOD feature. A CALPUFF input file provided

on the official TRC web site for VISTAS BAR T modeling (as well as the approved general EPA version) has MPARTL set to 0, which would be co nsistent with the rest of the changes affecting AERMOD options, and which is the CALPUFF defau lt. Consistent with the other changes removing AERMOD-related settings, Southern Comp any has opted to set MPARTL to zero, the

CALPUFF default.
No. 10-7532.

#### Woodrow Wilson Williams, Petitioner v. Lloyd Massey, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 1186, 131 S. Ct. 1011,

178 L. Ed. 2d 840,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 857.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 384 Fed. Appx. 335.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

           As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in this Form 10-K of our report dated March 16, 2001
included in Registration Statement File Nos. 33-31662, 33-56384, 33-56386,
33-65790, 33-64349, 333-13531, 333-36598, 333-41344, 333-44272, 333-44345,
333-48320, 333-48322, 333-53633, 333-87057, 333-60648, 333-65136, 333-73770,
333-76720, 333-81678, 333-81676, 333-82628, 333-82634 and 333-83094. It should
be noted that we have not audited any financial statements of Weatherford
International, Inc. subsequent to December 31, 2000 or performed any audit
procedures subsequent to the date of our report.





/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Houston, Texas
March 22, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 133 (Monday, July 13, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18483]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-324-000]


Blue Lake Gas Storage Company; Notice of Proposed Changes In FERC 
Gas Tariff

July 7, 1998.
    Take notice that on July 1, 1998, Blue Lake Gas Storage Company 
(Blue Lake) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1, Fourth Revised Sheet No. 153, to be effective 
August 1, 1998.
    Blue Lake states that the purpose of the filing is to incorporate 
Version 1.2 of the GISB standards adopted by the Gas Industry Standards 
Board and incorporated into the Commission's Regulations by Order No. 
587-G, issued April 16, 1998, at Docket No. RM96-1-007.
    Blue Lake states that copies of the filing were served upon the 
company's jurisdictional customer.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18483 Filed 7-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 10-7629.

#### Mark Conrad Faurot, II, Petitioner v. C. A. Terhune, et al.

562 U.S. 1203, 131 S. Ct. 1048,

178 L. Ed. 2d 869,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 980.

January 24, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 357 Fed. Appx. 137.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2834 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2834

   To revise the boundaries of a unit of the John H. Chafee Coastal 
  Barrier Resources System in Topsail, North Carolina, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 17, 2019

  Mr. Rouzer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To revise the boundaries of a unit of the John H. Chafee Coastal 
  Barrier Resources System in Topsail, North Carolina, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CORRECTION TO MAP.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall make such corrections 
to the map described in subsection (b) as are necessary to exclude lots 
from unit L06 of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System in 
North Topsail Beach, North Carolina, that were serviced by 
infrastructure, as described in subsection (c), installed along North 
Carolina Highway 210 and New River Inlet Road as of the date of 
enactment of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.).
    (b) Maps Described.--The map referred to in subsection (a) is a map 
that--
            (1) is included in a set of maps as part of the John H. 
        Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System entitled ``John H. 
        Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System'' and dated December 
        21, 2018; and
            (2) relates to unit L06 of the John H. Chafee Coastal 
        Barrier Resources System.
    (c) Infrastructure Described.--
            (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
        infrastructure referred to in subsection (a) is infrastructure 
        that meets the criteria described in section 4(g)(1)(B) of the 
        Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(1)(B)).
            (2) Inclusion.--For purposes of paragraph (1), North 
        Carolina Highway 210 and New River Inlet Road shall be 
        considered to meet the criteria described in section 
        4(g)(1)(B)(i) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 
        3503(g)(1)(B)(i)).
                                 <all>
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.A CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2003, of El Paso Natural Gas Company (the Company) as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
John W. Somerhalder II, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer,
certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ John W. Somerhalder IIJohn W. Somerhalder IIChairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)March 29, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to El Paso Natural Gas Company and will be retained by El Paso Natural
Gas Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.